F-22 and F-35 to get AI

a reply to: Zaphod58
It just amazes me how similar the issues are to other modern aircraft. Apart of course from the AI and military functions, etc. People see that it
needs a software update and think that somehow makes it unreliable or less of an aircraft when that's very commonplace among military and civil
programs alike. Virtually Everything is computerized on any new aircraft, down to the heath management systems you describe which are also being used
on modern airliners. People can't expect to get the full set of options on block A though, and it's costly to develop anything worth having

And when you add in the fact that the code for the F-35 makes the coding for every other aircraft ever built look like child's play, it just makes it
worse. Commercial aircraft code is nothing compared to what's going into the F-35. Sometimes I'm impressed they're as far as they are with it.

a reply to: Charts85
Oh I'm hearing you. I constantly have to quell peoples alarm when for example I mention that interface software on some airliner systems, domains and
networks is based on Windows or Linux. The travelling public are just ignorant and it doesn't help when attention seeking clowns like that guy who
claimed to be able to hack certain aircraft systems from his in seat USB and a laptop start mouthing off. Simple fact is manufacturers thought these
networks and hierarchies through long ago and took design principles accordingly. Some systems for example are simply one way, they can present you
with information but nothing can go in the other direction. or they may use 2 or even 3 separate systems using separate wiring and protocols to
present the same information. CANBUS and ARINC for example can be used to simultaneously carry software traffic and their results constantly compared.
I would expect that the LM and their partners took even more advanced precautions on the 5th Genr's.

originally posted by: mightmight
Well call me sceptic. Lets believe for a moment all this talk about reduced workloads and near full automation is actually a thing. Fine.
There is still the very real danger of overwhelming the pilot, just in a different way. In simple terms, with legacy aircraft the pilot needed to
‚work‘ the jet and had little time left to pay attention to what else was going on in the AO. You have your mission, stick to it, the end.
Today, with 5th Gen and all, the aircraft flys itself. And it gives you all this awesome information on just about everything within 1000 miles. And
with the equally awesome jet you ride in you can actually be and do just about anything.
But at what point is the sheer magnitude of battlespace information and tactical possibilities to much for a human to handle, no matter how much
software you throw at it?
At what point will the pilot simple be lost in a overflow of information?
Its not that all this isnt a great capability to have, but throwing all this stuff on the lone guy or gal outthere flying high in the skies over
bandit country is the wrong way to approach this IMO.
No matter how much software, automation and workflow reduction you try to use to make this work, the cockpikt will still be manned by a scared pilot
high on adrenaline pushing the boundaries of human efficiency at Mach .9 .
The obvious solution for this potential issue is larger platforms and crews. All this networking stuff is awesome (if it works) but dont dump it on
the pilot in the first line. Just use a command & control asset with more than one crewmember a hundred miles back to coordinate everything.
Its obvious IMO. And maybe its already a thing.

I think thats the point mate, the AI sends the stuff the pilot doesnt need to know to someone who does or it saves it. It keeps the pilot from saying
"wibble" half way into a mission.

So if they didn't get a software update the F-35 it would still give substandard performance?

The more I hear the more I think the F-35 is the Windows Vista of the fighter jet. It boggles the mind that a software update can hinder an aircraft
that costed more than a billion dollars to develop when that moolah could go into developing more sophisticated drones that don't endanger a pilot.

Typhoon was the same, envelope expansion was on DA-2, it was one I worked on. From Wiki:

DA2 United Kingdom DA2 undertook envelope expansion, flight control assessment and load trials. The aircraft first flew on 6 April 1994 as ZH588.
The flight control assessment included development of the Eurofighter's "carefree handling". On 23 December 1997 DA2 became the first Eurofighter to
achieve Mach 2 and in January 1998 undertook refuelling trials with a RAF VC10. Like DA1, DA2 was upgraded in 1998 with new engines, ejector seat and
avionics and rejoined the test programme in August. In 2000 the aircraft was covered with 490 pressure transducers; due to the fact that they were
covered by black pads and had associated wiring the aircraft was painted in a gloss black scheme. The pressure transducers measured the effects of
various weapons loads and external fuel tanks. In 2002 the aircraft undertook ASRAAM trials, completed carefree handling trials and commenced DASS
decoy trials.[4]

So if you put it up against an aircraft between 1994 and 2002 depending on the stage of its development, a dog fight would have had completely
different outcomes.

F-35 is running development in line with production just like Typhoon and every other project, you update the software in blocks as you prove it and
move from Development, to IOC to FOC and the enhancements such as P2E on typhoon to add LGB..

And when you add in the fact that the code for the F-35 makes the coding for every other aircraft ever built look like child's play, it just makes it
worse. Commercial aircraft code is nothing compared to what's going into the F-35. Sometimes I'm impressed they're as far as they are with it.

I totally agree, I remember observing the codies on a Fuel Computer back when they were looking at that green and white striped paper with perforated
edges and holes to allow the printer to feed it.

It was a clever box, moved all the fuel around the hull (no fuel tanks as such) to maintain optimum COG.

One fuel computer code was days in printing out, there were two computers for redundancy and then a reversionary mode which assumed gravity feed,
straight and level flight and use of the GYH indicators.

Agree. My newest car is electric, and it's a computer with some peripherals. They will all be that way. The Teslas can unlock new features &
capabilities with over the air upgrades, and significantly more with some parts upgrades and software upgrades.

And knowing software development---getting the first version's infrastructure and module system is a huge piece of work and difficulty. You deliver
with "minimal viable product". After that, new features which don't require a global rewrite are much faster to produce and deploy.

So if they didn't get a software update the F-35 it would still give substandard performance?

The more I hear the more I think the F-35 is the Windows Vista of the fighter jet. It boggles the mind that a software update can hinder an aircraft
that costed more than a billion dollars to develop when that moolah could go into developing more sophisticated drones that don't endanger a pilot.

Those drones also require software, and that software can't rely on the human to make a final decision, and the transmission back to base is jammed in
a war .

Windows Vista is a good analogy: when you upgrade the same hardware to Win 7, it does what it was supposed to do, and it's not too bad at it.

I feel that we need to be careful about the term "AI": we are still far away from true AI, though we are able to have solid decision making by
software/hardware under limited circumstances that goes far beyond your typical IF,THEN,ELSE way of programming. But we are far from a situation where
AI can plan a mission with true flair, creativity and effectiveness, or respond to all situations that a meatbag pilot can.

EU's latest plans are to copy the F-35 and also infiltrate and copy the ABM systems that are in Romania and Poland. Those copies would then be sold to
Mexico and Cuba to be used against the US in a pinch attack in coordination with British Canada.

It is very well known that those missiles can be used to strike ground targets with minimal changes in their software guidance system. This is
exactly what the EU has been looking for, since their attempts in THALES to build such missiles is not going very well!

originally posted by: Flanker86
EU's latest plans are to copy the F-35 and also infiltrate and copy the ABM systems that are in Romania and Poland. Those copies would then be sold to
Mexico and Cuba to be used against the US in a pinch attack in coordination with British Canada.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.